Lack of free WiFi on London buses?

[Jordan Adam]

Neighbouring countries have air conditioned buses/trams despite having similar or even colder climate than in England. Almost all British trains, even very local trains such as London Overground, built since the mid 90s have air-conditioning.

Bus... Train... Totally different things! Most new trains don't have hopper windows either nor do they serve bus stops.

 

[AM9]

Any articulated bus regardless of make costs more than it's rigid or decker counterpart! Further to this A/C is something not necessary in most of the UK.

I would imagine that a UK spec. Citaro 12m rigid is more expensive than the equivalent typical UK manufactured bus, partly because of it's more substantial construction normally required by overseas operators. The cost of wi-fi would be lost in the noise of the overall cost difference.

 

[Mwanesh]

Since WiFi has become commonplace on buses outside London, patronage has fallen. So they should be concentrating on things like having high specification vehicles running on time and with low fares. Revolutionary I know.

You can have a high spec vehicle and low fares sometimes it wont work.Yourbus tried taking on Arriva with high spec Mercedes Citaros but it did not work the routes were withdrawn.Market forces normally determine what you buy .Premium buses cost a fortune .Look at London buses cheap but patronage is falling.Running on time no matter where or how you run traffic affects you.

 

[IanD]

But are these people likely to use the car instead if Wifi isn't provided? Tourists to Britain from outside the EU often buy prepaid SIM cards for their visit, which is what I do as well when going somewhere outside the EU roaming area.

Again, you're assuming because you do something so do most other people.

 

[radamfi]

Bus... Train... Totally different things! Most new trains don't have hopper windows either nor do they serve bus stops.

My point is that Britain expects high specification for trains but not for buses, but in other countries they have high specification for buses as well as trains.

 

[radamfi]

Again, you're assuming because you do something so do most other people.

So do you think people who can't afford their own data will use the car instead?

 

[radamfi]

You can have a high spec vehicle and low fares sometimes it wont work.Yourbus tried taking on Arriva with high spec Mercedes Citaros but it did not work the routes were withdrawn.Market forces normally determine what you buy .Premium buses cost a fortune .Look at London buses cheap but patronage is falling.Running on time no matter where or how you run traffic affects you.

But Yourbus was located in an area covered by deregulation and therefore had to turn a profit. Most operators with expensive vehicles are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Essentially, deregulation is not compatible with running a high specification service at low cost.

London may have falling patronage, but patronage is still massively higher than in was in the 90s and is still way ahead of the rest of the country.

 

[AM9]

National Express have seen increases in patronage on premium services, following the introduction of the new buses fitted with WiFi/USB plugs on routes like the X1, X2 and X51, I read somewhere.

"Clear evidence that Platinum is delivering results can be seen in the performance of the 900 service since it began in May last year. Patronage growth is currently 11% and continuing to grow." - 900 is now the X1.

However, there are no real premium services in central London, - just lots of frequent buses with plenty of passengers to load them.

 

[jellybaby]

Tfl dont bother and would rather you used the underground.

TfL would rather you used a bus than the Underground.

If a bus service is full it's fairly easy to run more buses or add a route. Much harder to do that with trains.

 

[radamfi]

TfL would rather you used a bus than the Underground.

If a bus service is full it's fairly easy to run more buses or add a route. Much harder to do that with trains.

calberry is probably talking about the rationalisation of central London bus services on corridors which are excessively bussed.

 

[Andyh82]

Outside of London bus companies have to attract passengers so often offer ‘high spec’ interiors with coach and/or leather seats, WiFi, usb chargers etc etc.

London buses tend to attract passengers with minimal effort so provide very basic spec interiors, you rarely even get a high back seat in London.

 

[radamfi]

Outside of London bus companies have to attract passengers so often offer ‘high spec’ interiors with coach and/or leather seats, WiFi, usb chargers etc etc.

Seriously, though, how much extra does it cost to provide those things? They are nothing compared to the cost of high cost of running a high frequency bus service from early in the morning to late at night, 24/7 on many routes, in a congested area like TfL do. As well as providing next stop information, which very few other operators in Britain provide yet commonplace in other countries for many years, they also have a (admittedly primitive) form of air cooling on double deckers. Vehicles used in Britain, in London and outside London, are cheap to buy compared to those provided in other western European countries. TfL contractors do use Citaros on a handful of routes, but they do not have air conditioning as far as I know.

 

[Mwanesh]

Your London comparison .You can only provide a service where there is demand.I work in transport am not just an enthusiast.Try travelling out of London and spend days in other towns.Most towns are dead during the night .If you look at each area in UK you will find some area have buses till late at night because they are used.You mention buses the UK is what it is .There is a big difference between the cost of a standard bus and a premium bus.

 

[jon0844]

I don't know what tariffs bus (or rail) operators negotiate, but I suspect usage on a bus is relatively low in most cases and certainly throttled to ensure all users get a slice of the pie. I doubt multiple SIMs are used like on a train.

In central London with so many access points and so few Wi-Fi channels (especially for 2.4GHz users) I am sure there's loads of congestion. Even just a few buses near each other with the same SSID must be an issue. I bet speeds and reliability is poor and tourists may find themselves getting a bad experience that means maps not updating, searches timing out etc.

I see no harm offering it, but on my local buses I never bother with Wi-Fi. If the bus had a data signal, so do I. And my phone has 5 carrier aggregation for speeds in excess of 150Mbps all for myself.

USB charging is good but I can imagine central London buses with people hopping on and off presenting issues. Plus I find the output rather pathetic so the boost you'll get on a short ride is negligible. My own power bank is 20 or 25W and soon I will have one that's 40 or 45W. 0-70% charge in 30 minutes for my phone.

 

[radamfi]

Your London comparison .You can only provide a service where there is demand.I work in transport am not just an enthusiast.Try travelling out of London and spend days in other towns.Most towns are dead during the night .If you look at each area in UK you will find some area have buses till late at night because they are used.You mention buses the UK is what it is .There is a big difference between the cost of a standard bus and a premium bus.

London is not all bright lights. However, even if you go to far flung areas such as Uxbridge and Romford, there are still decent service levels and usage. Manchester is another booming city and has grown dramatically since the 90s, yet bus usage has declined dramatically. But Metrolink manages to operate at least every 12 minutes, from first to last tram, 7 days a week, and has severe overcrowding issues throughout much of the day. We therefore conclude that it is not demand for transport that is declining, but the fact that the bus service outside London is for the most part severely lacking.

 

[Mwanesh]

Traffic congestion in Manchester puts people off buses.

 

[edwin_m]

Traffic congestion in Manchester puts people off buses.

But traffic congestion in London is worse.

 

[higthomas]

TfL would rather you used a bus than the Underground.

If a bus service is full it's fairly easy to run more buses or add a route. Much harder to do that with trains.

Definitely not true. They make much more money off underground users so they'd rather you used them.

 

[DeeLondon]

I have a friend coming to London from Russia today - But they won't have any kind of internet connection until we can give them a local SIM Card. I looked into SIM Card sellers at Heathrow Airport but there only seems to be one company selling SIM Cards and probably at such rip off prices that they don't even display their rates on their website.

It would be nice if they at least installed free WiFi on the buses that run to and from the airports. Her bus journey will be 58 stops and take almost 1.5 hours and this is her very first time in London. WiFi on the buses to and from the airports would be well used by people that would really need it. On a side note I went to Dublin and they had free WiFi on their buses and it was awesome

 

[Astradyne]

Not entirely true Heathrow has free Wifi

 

[Ethano92]

Why are we pretending every journey in London is a 5 minute hop on, hop off. Many people are forced to make long journeys by bus because they can't afford train fares, (such as those on long routes such as the x26, x68, 53 and others where you have to instead change routes as there isn't a direct long one). I don't think there's a desperate need to install WiFi (I'd prefer TFL to focus on introducing battery technology to improve air quality in London, not just central london too) but I think it's something that does make you sort of go 'oh ok wow' if you're visiting such a large, wealthy capital.

Saying that, if they used the same system as tube station WiFi where you have to sign in with your provider, it wouldn't be very useful to tourists from other countries anyway, the WiFi they've installed on the 710s and 345s is much better.

 

[AM9]

Why are we pretending every journey in London is a 5 minute hop on, hop off. Many people are forced to make long journeys by bus because they can't afford train fares, (such as those on long routes such as the x26, x68, 53 and others where you have to instead change routes as there isn't a direct long one). I don't think there's a desperate need to install WiFi (I'd prefer TFL to focus on introducing battery technology to improve air quality in London, not just central london too) but I think it's something that does make you sort of go 'oh ok wow' if you're visiting such a large, wealthy capital.

Saying that, if they used the same system as tube station WiFi where you have to sign in with your provider, it wouldn't be very useful to tourists from other countries anyway, the WiFi they've installed on the 710s and 345s is much better.

Travelling on buses in London is a necessity for some and they may not be able to afford as much internet access as they might fancy. If there is a real need then it is just part of their living expenses. For those making an occasional visit to London as tourists, (whether from one of the few UK areas where good wi-fi is de-rigeur on buses) they would be best served by purchasing, say, 1 month's worth of mobile access including data for their phone, (I'm assuming that nobody here is demanding that TfL provide free smartphones for those unable to afford them). Prices for a single month connection can be as little as £6.00 for 300 minutes talk and 500MB data from GiffGaff, the SIM can be delivered to an overseas address and the contract does not need to be renewed at the end of the month. £6.00 is less than London bus travel for two days, so anybody who can afford to cruise around London who thinks that they need internet access 24/7 should sort out their priorities. There is no need for TfL to add the cost of internet access to bus services as almost without exception, good 4G coverage universal, (cue post from somebody who knows of somewhere that access is not so good).

 

[AM9]

My point is that Britain expects high specification for trains but not for buses, but in other countries they have high specification for buses as well as trains.

No, Britain expects high specification transport. The basics of a bus service are: the capacity of the bus services matching demand, their reliability in doing that, journey times and of course affordable fares. Frippery such as charging their devices and availability of communication services both of which individuals themselves can provide, do not trump any of the basic requirements of travel, - nor do they mitigate failures to deliver on those basics.

 

[Starmill]

The main reason I connect to WiFi when it's available is to conserve battery. When I had a data limit this was also a key reason to connect.

 

[MotCO]

No, Britain expects high specification transport. The basics of a bus service are: the capacity of the bus services matching demand, their reliability in doing that, journey times and of course affordable fares. Frippery such as charging their devices and availability of communication services both of which individuals themselves can provide, do not trump any of the basic requirements of travel, - nor do they mitigate failures to deliver on those basics.

But is it not also to entice those off other forms of transport causing congestion and pollution?

 

[Mikey C]

Not over concerned about wifi on London buses when 4g/3g coverage is so good

To me the wifi on trains is more useful when in the countryside with poor reception

 

[AM9]

But is it not also to entice those off other forms of transport causing congestion and pollution?

If you are talking about "other forms of transport causing congestion and pollution?", I presume that you mean private vehicles (i.e. cars). How many of those who have cars available to them do you think will be ecouraged to use buses just because wi-fi is available on them? Moreover, how many of those will drive into the congestion zone at £11.50 per day in preference to paying £4.40* for all of their bus travel expenses?
* That's just over 38% of a charge to use their car in a certain area, ignoring the fuel cost, parking costs and wear and tear on the vehicle (and driver!).

 

[Busaholic]

In view of the general decline in London bus travel i.e. increased journey times, leading often to decreased frequencies and shortening of routes, particularly in the central area, imo provision of widespread wifi is unnecessary, with any 'spare' cash needing to be directly allocated to helping all passengers, not just the machine-fixated. If the individual bus companies choose to provide wifi not at TfL's expense, as it were, then all well and good, otherwise no.

 

[edwin_m]

If the individual bus companies choose to provide wifi not at TfL's expense, as it were, then all well and good, otherwise no.

Under the franchise regime it's unlikely this would ever happen. Providing and supporting wifi is a cost and hassle for the operator and they wouldn't receive any benefit - probably not even PR kudos as 99.9% of passengers don't care who runs a London bus even if they know. In fact if the wifi attracts extra passengers it's a downside for the operator - more passengers means more dwell time, more chance of passenger-related incidents and therefore more risk of penalties for failing to provide a good service.

 

[Busaholic]

Under the franchise regime it's unlikely this would ever happen. Providing and supporting wifi is a cost and hassle for the operator and they wouldn't receive any benefit - probably not even PR kudos as 99.9% of passengers don't care who runs a London bus even if they know. In fact if the wifi attracts extra passengers it's a downside for the operator - more passengers means more dwell time, more chance of passenger-related incidents and therefore more risk of penalties for failing to provide a good service.

Hardly a good advert for the franchise regime, is it? The disadvantages have taken longer to surface than with rail TOCs perhaps, partly because, as you say, most passengers couldn't give a fig about who runs the buses they use. I think in time all significant bus operation in London will be brought back 'in house' as it were, as has happened in other countries. So long as you don't get politicians trying to control day-to-day operations I can see significant advantages in this, though I accept there might be some downsides.